"By the way, he thinks he's shaming me while I think
he's helping spread a message many people will
eventually thank me for. I couldn't ask for a better
plug to bring this natural miraculous healer to
everyone's attention, even if from a demented
lunatic. I'm so not ashamed that I even pee a mug
full and chug it in the DVD put out last year at
http://www.turmelmovie.com so it's not as if I'm not
happy to get the message out."
John "Piss Boy" Turmel

JCT: Back in June 2004, the police raided the home of Doug
and Laurie Nielsen and charged them with Section 4(1)
possession of 20 grams of marijuana. For those who don't
know, a gram is the weight of one tobacco cigarette or one
currency note. Police usually charge to children too so the
threat of ruining their young lives with a criminal record
may coerce the parents into a guilty plea. Despite both
parents claiming the few-day supply of medical marijuana for
themselves, 18-year-old Danielle was also charged. And they
included the Section 5(2) charge of possession for the
purpose of trafficking because they found Doug's business
scales that weigh down 1/1000th of one gram.

After using a Prohibition Application Kit, losing and going
to appeal, the Crown chose to drop all the charges against
Laurie and Danielle if Doug would plead guilty to the
merest S.4(1) possession charge and drop his appeal. Since
I, Pierre Drouin and Real Martin were already in on the
challenges which could nullify Doug's conviction with
everyone else's if we win, I advised them to take the deal n
call it a win.

Remember, they'd all been reporting monthly, and then
weekly, and spent a few nights in jail due to a mix-up in
court dates! The State of Canada did harm them
substantially. For the benefit of protecting Canadians
against a non-toxic herb that has never killed anyone?
Someday, traitor to the herbal generation Stephen Harper
will get to explain why he preferred his kids drink than
smoke herb. He's our leader and he's got his facts wrong.
When the leader doesn't want to know the truth, does not
seek out the truth, and lies, he's a Judas Goat. I did have
the pleasure of calling him a traitor to the "pepsi"
generation at his stop in Brantford during the last
election. Anyone younger than me who says herb is dangerous,
more dangerous than alcohol, is evil or stupid, a moron or a
mole.

We have had this transcript for a couple of weeks, but have
been so busy with work & re-doing our roof etc.. sorry it
took so long to get it posted on here.

This has got to be the worst transcript we've ever received.
The spelling is bad & there are actually a lot of things
that were left out.
Seeing it on paper doesn't convey just how mad the crown was
when Doug was willing to take the stand over the scales
either.
The back of his neck & the bald spot on the top of his head
went bright red, we could only imagine that his face was
just as red since he never looked back at us, not once
during the whole appearance until it was all over. He
slammed his ass down really hard in his chair & yelled "just
give them the damn thing, I'm not here prepared to argue
over a 4-1".
This all happened before he got caught up in his own lies
about consenting to our bail conditions being changed & the
judge pointed it out too.

MR. SMITH: He's going to enter a plea of guilty, Your
Honour, to one count of possession of a controlled substance
contrary to Section 4(1), at which time I am going to
withdraw the charges against Laurel and Danielle. I might
also indicate to the court, Your Honour, that Mr. Nielsen,
Laurel Nielsen and Danielle Nielsen have an appeal before
the Court of Appeal pending. They have signed a notice of
abandonment of that appeal. Ms. Ornawka acting as an
intermediary, I guess, is holding the paperwork until the
plea is entered and he's sentenced, at which time I'll get a
copy of it and I'll provide a copy to you.

JCT: Doug and Laurie said they didn't trust Smith enough to
sign their abandonment and then be sentenced, and Smith
didn't trust them to do the plea and then have the appeal
abandoned, so they got a legal aid lawyer to hold the signed
Notice of Abandonment until the sentencing was over.

THE COURT: All right. Is Mr. Nielsen with us today?
MR. SMITH: Yes, he's right here.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Nielsen, did you hear
and understand what was being said, first?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes I did.
THE COURT: Are you representing yourself today?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes I am.
THE COURT: All right. Do you know whether you're eligible to
speak to duty counsel or not?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: No I'm not.
MR. RUNCO: For the record, Your Honour, I did conduct a
financial eligibility test for Mr. Nielsen, and he does not
qualify.

JCT: So Doug didn't qualify for Legal Aid and like many
other Canadians, faces onerous lawyer fees to fight off
being saddled with a criminal record. That's the real
penalty, paying lawyers to try to get you off on a
technicality, since, if the law is really resurrected by the
judges taking the law into their own hands, you're guilty
anyway.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Nielsen, I gather that
you've had conversations with Mr. Smith who's the federal
prosecutor, is that correct?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Pardon?
MR. SMITH: He didn't, not himself directly, he had, through
duty counsel, Mr. Vandervet who appeared at my office, and
this was pursuant to a resolution discussion, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Do you intend to enter a guilty plea
today to one charge, sir?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: All right. In order to accept that plea, you have
to have an understanding of why you're doing that. First,
are you doing so of your own free will?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes.
THE COURT: By doing so, you're saying, I agree, I committed
the offence and the Crown can prove the offence against me.
Do you understand that?

JCT: Only to a judge who is ignorant that the law is dead.

DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes.
THE COURT: Secondly, the Crown will, Mr. Smith, on behalf of
the federal prosecution, will indeed read into the record
facts which will support the contention that you committed
the acts that give rise to the events. You will have the
opportunity to listen to those facts; you can agree or
disagree with any of them. Do you understand that?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes
THE COURT: If those facts are sufficient to prove the
offence they will be used for a finding of guilt. Lastly,
you may or may not have had conversations with respect to a
possible penalty, you should understand that the penalty is
the responsibility of the court no matter what submissions
are made. Any questions sir?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: No.
THE COURT: All right. We can proceed.
COURT CLERK: Douglas Nielsen, remain standing for a moment,
sir. Douglas Nielsen, you are charged that on or about the
2nd day of June, 2004 in the County of Brant in the said
Region, did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to
wit: marijuana contrary to Section 4(1) of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act. How do you plead sir, guilty or
not guilty?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Guilty.
THE COURT: You can have a seat there, sir.
MR. SMITH: Briefly put, the 2nd of June, 2004 members of the
Brant County O.P.P. executed a CDSA warrant; it's a tele-
warrant to search the residence of Doug and Laurel, L-A-U-R-
E-L NIELSEN, located at 46 Mechanic Street in the Town of
Paris. The tele-warrant was presented before Justice of the
Peace Chapelle, C-H-A-P-E-L-L-E, in Newmarket

JCT: Newmarket? Newmarket? It's 100 miles away.

with authorization given to enter the residence on the 2nd
of June, 2004, between the hours of 2045 and 2359 hours.
Entry was made without incident at 2202 hours. Mr. Nielsen,
his wife Laurel, and their daughter, Danielle were arrested
for possession of a substance. Officers immediately
observed, located under an end table between Doug and Laurel
Nielsen, excuse me for a second; excuse me, they found
marijuana there. I can tell you it was 20.2 grams that was
located. They also located. Your Honour, an electronic scale
from inside a desk shelf unit, some Zig-Zag rolling papers,
scissors, some undetermined seeds. Although they found some
money I'm not pursuing the Section 5(2) CDSA charge. And
they were all released on a promise to appear on an officer
in charge undertaking. It's about $200 worth of marijuana,
Your Honour, at $10 a gram.
THE COURT: Mr. Nielsen, are those facts correct?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: My wife's name wasn't on the warrant. And
when the police came in I directed them to the marijuana;
they didn't see it anywhere.
THE COURT: All right.
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Other than that everything's...
THE COURT: Those facts are accepted?
MR. SMITH: That's fine.
THE COURT: All right. Based upon your plea, sir, and the
facts that are now before the court in full, I find you
guilty of the offence to which you pled guilty.
MR. SMITH: This is Mr. Nielsen's record. Past, convictions
from 1990, 1997; the only one that's really relevant is the
1990 conviction, and it's somewhat dated.
THE COURT: That will be Exhibit 1.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 1: Criminal record of Douglas Nielsen -
produced and marked.
THE COURT: I'm not sure whether it was on the record or not
sir, but I understood that you were agreeing this is indeed,
your record?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes.
THE COURT: Yes. All right. It's, as indicated, a record with
only two convictions and it's dated; the relevant conviction
is substantially dated, being approximately 16 years ago.
MR. SMITH: I'm only seeking a fine, Your Honour, in the
range of $300 to $350 with some time to pay.

JCT: A fine?

I would also ask for a forfeiture, Your Honour, obviously,
of the scale and the offence related property. I don't think
that Mr. Nielsen would ...
THE COURT: Well, let's be specific.
MR. SMITH: All right.
THE COURT: The offence related property techinically could..
MR. SMITH: The marijuana ...
THE COURT: ...be the house.

JCT: Think about that. Seizing the person's house. Talk
about oppression. Imagine how bloody the "wars" would have
been had they taken the house with the still in the days of
alcohol prohibition. Government hurting so many harmless
people since most growers grow for themselves and sell a bit
to cover costs. And they can seize the home.

MR. SMITH: No. Marijuana, I'm not asking for the money
because I didn't take a plea to the 5(2), the scale inside
the desk shelf unit; the electronic scale. The
paraphernalia, Zig-Zag rolling papers, scissors, seeds, and
basically that's it.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Your Honour, the seeds were found to be
non-narcotic seeds; they were actually my plants for this
year's garden. They were tested and brought back "non-
narcotic seeds".
THE COURT: When you say, "brought back", who's in possession
of them today?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Not me.
THE COURT: All right.
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: They're still seized. The scale is a
business scale, Your Honour, it's not your typical marijuana
scale. It, it counts paper, it counts money, and it's for my
home business and, and it was found in the business section
in my house, not with the paraphernalia or anywhere near the
marijuana. And it's not just a cheap scale; it was a very
expensive scale.
MR. SMITH: Your Honour, this is stuff that was apparently
located in the house and there was charges of possession for
the purpose of trafficking.
THE COURT: Well the only thing I - 22 grams...
MR. SMITH: Twenty point ...
THE COURT: ... or 20.2 grams ...
MR. SMITH: Yes.
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: If I'm not being charged under the 5(2),
Your Honour, I still (ph) ...
MR. SMITH: I don't really ...
THE COURT: No, I understand that sir, but let me ask you a
different question ...
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Okay.
THE COURT: What scale is on the scale? Do you understand
what I'm asking you?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: No.
THE COURT: What is the lowest amount that scale can measure?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Probably .001; it'll, it'll count - you
could put a dollar bill on it and then put a stack on it and
it'll tell you how much is there.
THE COURT: Are you married, sir?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes I am.
THE COURT: Children?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes.
THE COURT: How many?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Two.
THE COURT: Living with you?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you working?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes. I actually have a letter here-I'm, I
have the flu and I can't quite focus on the page . . .
THE COURT: That's fine, I'll .....
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: ... but ...
THE COURT: ... read it ...
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: ... it gives you ...
THE COURT: ... if you ...
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: ... a bit of ...
THE COURT: ... wish.
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: ... background on me.
THE COURT: Yes.
[...INTERRUPTION RE UNRELATED MATTER
THE COURT: You have spent one day in jail, sir?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Smith should see this letter. You
may have a seat for a minute sir.
MR. SMITH: That's fine. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: With respect to the scale, sir, any remarks you
make from where you are, are simply that, remarks; I take
them into consideration. If you make them from the witness
stand under oath they carry greater weight.
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Okay.
THE COURT: If you're concerned about the scale issue, I
would require something from you under oath. In effect, I
would ask you questions about the use of that scale in your
home.
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes.
THE COURT: You should understand that if you take the stand
and give that kind of evidence under oath, Mr. Smith has the
right to cross-examine you and you are subject to that
cross-examination. Do you understand?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes I do.
THE COURT: Do you wish to take ...
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes I do.
THE COURT: ... that procedure?
MR. SMITH: Why don't you just give him the scale back, I'm
not going to ...
THE COURT: Apparently the scale has won the day, sir.
MR. SMITH: I'm not going to spend time on a 4(1), Your
Honour.
THE COURT: All right. The letter that is Exhibit 2,
indicates that you spent time in jail, that there were
onerous terms of release from custody, that they have been
in existence since on or about the time of the offence in
June of 2004, which is approaching two years. And that the
amount involved, as indicated by the Crown was some 20-odd
grams.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 2: Letter - produced and marked.
MR. SMITH: May I just address that, Your Honour? Sorry. The
part of the delay if you will, has been as a result of
applications being brought in the Superior Court and Mr.
NIELSEN and his family are quite, have a right to do that.
But a lot of this delay in getting a date in these, Court of
Appeal, for an appeal has resulted in the two years
essentially with this
THE COURT: Well it would appear, from the letter, that the
applications in the Superior Court were indeed justified
because the bail terms were reviewed and changed, as I read
it.
MR. SMITH: They were essentially reviewed and changed on
consent,

JCT: He never consented.

yes, but I, it was done because, Your Honour, there was this
appeal pending, there was trial date set already that we
agreed to adjourn because this appeal was pending. So I
can't agree, necessarily, with everything that's being said
in that regard.
THE COURT: I understand, but what I'm reading is that there
was justification for the, it wasn't simply a matter of
delaying things arbitrarily on behalf of the accused person;
in fact there was some success with respect to the material
and the activity in the other court.
MR. SMITH: Well, there was some success because it was done
on consent with the greatest of respect, and it was done I
consent - well, wait a minute, Your Honour, you can't ...
THE COURT: If it was done on consent why was the application
necessary?

JCT: Har har har har. Caught him.

MR. SMITH: There was no request, in this court, to do that.
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes there was, Your Honour, and it wasn't
agreed to and it was brought forth in front of a J.P. that I
had no power to do so.
MR. SMITH: What bothers me, Your Honour, is that we
discussed this at length in my office for about an hour and
a half with Mr. Vandervet; we were all on the same page and
then there is, these suggestions have come up at the
eleventh hour. I'm going to leave it in Your Honour's
capable hands.
THE COURT: Anything else you wish to say, sir?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: No sir.
THE COURT: All right. With respect to this matter you will
be fined the sum of $150 without surcharge. How much time do
you need to pay that fine?
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: A week.
THE COURT: Two weeks to pay. In addition there will be
forfeiture of the following materials: the marijuana that
was seized, the papers that were seized, the scissors that
were seized, and the seeds that were seized. There will be
no forfeiture of the scale because it is no longer
requested. Thank you.
MR. ORSINI: The other counts, failing to appear against this
accused, as well as the two co-accused can be marked
withdrawn.
MR. SMITH: As should the 5(2) Your Honour ...
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR.SMITH: ... I guess, all of them.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SMITH: There is an application, I should give them a
copy, it's an abandonment of their appeal that Ms.
Ornawka's, as I've indicated, is holding that. So if you'd..
COURT CLERK: Mr. Nielsen, you'll wait in the area of the
court office for your paperwork.
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Yes.
COURT CLERK: They'll call your name when it's ready.
DOUGLAS NIELSEN: Okay.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED

JCT: Like I always said, the attrition works our way when
doing guerrilla law. It cost the state quite the little
fortune as well costing the Nielsen family quite the much
inconvenience and threat. But if everyone used the "Do-it-
yourself medpot resistance kits available at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm
we'd slow them down somewhat. Sure, they have hundreds of
judges to process the victims but only 20 or so at the Court
of Appeal who sit in threes and fives. That's when we
really inconvenience them and make them more willing to
trade. And Doug taking the plea loses nothing since the
other three medpot musketeers are still on appeal with the
same case.